The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1887-07-09
HAD TO FOOT TIE BILL.
A French Noblemen Compelled to Pay His
Wife's Dressmakers.

Wife's Dressmakers.
A certain noblemen named Comte de
Chambrun, says an English paper,
spent last winter at Nice, accompanied
by his amiable and fascinating but
somewhat expensive better half. The
Count seems to have been gentleman
of an economical turn of mind. Long
experience has taught him that one of
the first actions which his wife might
be expected to perform when she arrived
at any new place was to visit the local
modistes, coiffeurs, jewellers and other
tradespeople, who devote themselves to
the pleasing task of making the human
form divine still diviner, and to run up
a tremendous bill with each of them.
What could the aggrieved and possibly
impecunious French noblemen do to
place check on the extravaganza Of
his domestic establishment? He sent a
notification round to all the chief trades
people at the southern paradise that he
would not be answerable for articles
supplied to his wife beyond an amount
which he specified, and which was GER
tainly small-not more than few hun
dred francs. This mode of proceeding
is not altogether unknown in England,
and when it is resorted to we can well
believe that only severe necessity
prompts the commission of such
very unconjugal act. Practically it
was declaration of war by the Count
against the wife of his bosom, but
neither the Countess nor her trades
people seems to have taken any notice of
her husbands warning. After the lapse
of a month or two he was not pleasantly
surprised to receive ''little bill'' from
his wife's dressmaker at Nice, amount
ing to some six thousand francs-a
claim which he refused to pay. In an
action brought before the Nice civil tri-
bunal the economical Count gained the
victory, which certainly shows a great
deal of judicial impartiality, rs such
decision must have been given in the
teeth of the public opinion of the whole
trading community of the place The
disappointed dressmaker then appealed,
and here she met with more success.
The Appeal Court at AK decided in her
favor, and the President, in pronounce
ing judgment for her claim, gave utter
ance to some truly remarkable senti-
ments. He said that it was the duty of
a husband to do more than merely
provide his wife with clothes to her
back; he was bound also to 'embellish"
her. A modiste who supplied wife
with fashionable garments which min
istered to this process of establishment
was merely doing her duty-or, rather,
she was doing the husbands duty for
him-and had right to charge ac-
cordingly. Then the extremely gal
liant Judge, who must assuredly be
thorough Gladys man. at AK. pro-
ceeded to argue that a desire for embel-
lishment on a wife'S part was not Il
selfish aspiration at all. A married
couple go to dinner ora ball together.
Each shine with the reflected glory of
the other. The gentleman benefits
directly in the good opinion of every
body present from the fact that his
wife can boast becoming toilet.
Therefore, even viewing the matter
from the low standpoint of the hus-
bands own interests, he ought not to
object to any thing which satisfies the
dignity and legitimate pride" of his
consort. So at least thinks the French
Judge who decided in favor of the
dressmaker and against the Count
Cor. Chicago Tribune.